D Harinatha Reddy vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 22 December, 2020

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

D Harinatha Reddy vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 22 December, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 25.04.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 09.01.2018 and first appeal dated 14.03.2018:-

 Provide the details of date of joining, designation, date of promotion/national seniority and data pertaining to equation of cadre in Government of Andhra Pradesh and pay and allowances, etc.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 09.01.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Saptagiri Grameena Bank, Chittoor, seeking Page 1 of 3 aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 06.02.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 14.03.2018. The First Appellate Authority (FAA)disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 03.04.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 25.04.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 25.04.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the respondent had not furnished the desired information.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 06.02.2018 replied that the RTI Act was an avenue to seek information/records from the bank and seeking opinion/clarification/advice did not fall within the ambit of RTI Act.

Hearing on 27.05.2020 4.1. The appellant as well as the respondent remained unavailable for the hearing.

Interim order dated 09.06.2020 4.2. The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 09.06.2020:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, notes that both parties remained absent. Principles of natural justice demand that the parties be given reasonable opportunity to present their case. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned."

Hearing on 20.11.2020

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri G Jaikumar, CPIO, Saptagiri Grameena Bank, Chittoor attended the hearing through video conference. 5.1. The appellant inter alia desired information was provided by the respondent and he was satisfied with the same. He further submitted that he was not interested to pursue the matter anymore.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that he had already furnished point-wise reply/information to the appellant.

Page 2 of 3

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the appellant during the course of hearing submitted that he was satisfied with the information provided by the respondent and further expressed his willingness to withdraw his second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 18.12.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

SAPTAGIRI GRAMEENA BANK HEAD OFFICE, P.B. No. 17, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 001 THE F.A.A, SAPTAGIRI GRAMEENA BANK HEAD OFFICE, P.B. No. 17, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 001 D HARINATHA REDDY Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission